- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Bacara Scoping Hearing Draws Public Criticism
Voicing concern over what one speaker called a “total reversal to the usual, acceptable planning process,” members of the public met with Goleta officials to air their grievances about policies involving Bacara Resort & Spa’s latest project. The hotel would like to see 55 condominiums along Haskell’s Beach, and a scoping hearing was held Thursday evening in council chambers to gather public input on the policy changes the project would require. The purpose of the hearing was not to discuss the project, but the guidelines governing it. Because the proposal would require 12 General Plan amendments, the city is collecting public comment and will be shaping a scope of services for an environmental impact report work to be undertaken.
That scope of services report will be brought before the City Council, which will decide whether to initiate a contract to prepare the EIR, said Steve Chase, planning and environmental services director. Goleta is also in draft stages with a concurrent EIR for the city’s track-three General Plan amendments, and a final version will be ready in a couple of months.
Connie Hannah, representing the League of Women Voters, took issue with the Bacara project requesting amendments while final environmental review for the track-three amendments remained to be seen.
“The project should not even be considered until the track-three amendments have been properly analyzed,” said Hannah, who added that the changes would not be project specific and would apply citywide.
Hannah also said the buildings would interfere with the public’s use of Haskell’s Beach.
Michael Lunsford of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy took issue with a large resort requesting changes to city policy.
“The question is, ‘Would this kind of treatment be given to me or any other homeowner in the city of Goleta?’” he asked. “It’s been my experience that you don’t get past the planning desk until you’re consistent. And yet, in this case, we have a massive change.
“I’m afraid that what you’re doing is setting yourself up for a constitutional issue of equal treatment,” he said. “The rooms that are being anticipated are larger than my remodeled house. I suspect that is consistent with most people who live in Goleta.”
Brian Trautwein, speaking for the Environmental Defense Center, discussed the location’s environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or ESHAs. The General Plan designates that the area where the condos would be built is such a habitat, but efforts are under way to change that designation, he said.
“That’s significant, because under the Coastal Act, you can’t build on an environmentally sensitive habitat area,” he said, adding that even if the city were to change the ESHA in the General Plan, the Coastal Act has jurisdiction over this project.
Meanwhile, one speaker drew attention to the presence of prehistoric Chumash archaeological sites. Frank Arredondo described himself as one of about eight people who can trace their genealogy to prehistoric Chumash, and he challenged the city to conduct consultations with the tribe.
“This project is very important to me,” he said.
Arredondo said he’s placed calls to Bacara, saying he was an interested Native American party, but that he has yet to receive a response.
Members of the public who missed the scope hearing may submit written comments to City Hall until 5:30 p.m. April 16.
Once staff has analyzed the environmental report, Chase said the city would bring that document through the Planning Commission process to the council.
“I don’t want to prejudge that outcome,” he said. Public hearings before the council and planning commission will help determine the adequacy of that document, and also whether the General Plan will require modification.
“We get the whole issue of cart before the horse,” he said. “And we struggle with that ourselves. But this is a public planning process and we have an obligation, under due process, to guide it carefully and judiciously.”
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 04.11.09 @ 06:19 AM
If they want the buildings to be vandalized. This is perfect for money hungry investors that have no soul. And Screw all the surfers and people that used to enjoy Haskells when the Buttcara wasn’t there. PEOPLE OF GOLETA NEED TO WRITE YOUR CITY HALL AND TELL THEM YOU DISAPPROVE THIS BUILDING PROJECT!!! We need to protect our coasts and beaches. This is our land. The Bacara has bad karma to begin with..
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.11.09 @ 07:57 AM
Steve Chase has previously stated his concern over “the tone that is set” when developers enter his office. He has consistently opposed the use of shall over should in the general plan. Perhaps he should be less concerned about his relationship with developers and more concern with the reasons Goletans voted for cityhood in the first place.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.11.09 @ 04:46 PM
As predicted - give Bacara an inch and they take a mile. They have already taken over a secluded beach. Not enough? What’s next? Modify the plan just to suit them? Who do they think they are? They should consider themselves fortunate to even be here.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.12.09 @ 06:03 AM
The Bacara should never have been built in the first place; what advantage have we citizens gained from having our beach replaced by a hotel for the rich only? Allowing expansion of this cancer—and paving of yet more of the CA coastline—has no upside for those of us who live here. Downsides include fewer animals, more traffic, more pollution.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.12.09 @ 08:40 AM
The Bacara is big enough and does not serve the people who live here. 12 General Plan amendments! A loss of a beach, a loss to the nature who lives there… all to accommodate the very rich? Is this really what we want for Goleta?
Of course, now we’ll also need more low income housing for the the housekeepers and other service workers who will need to keep these new units clean and serviced.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.13.09 @ 02:56 PM
As a resort, the Bacara is flailing. Read the customer reviews it gets on travel websites. Not too sharp. This is where Alvin is hoping to make some money finally. Knock out these cheesey “timeshares”, sell them off, then dump the Bacara off on some big sucker and disappear.
The Bacara has never been a good neighbor or even a decent citizen of Goleta. The obvious proof is that they still won’t even admit they’re in Goleta, they list their address as Santa Barbara, 93117!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.14.09 @ 10:19 AM
Yet another greedy developer coming here and trying to ruin our city.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.15.09 @ 11:59 AM
First and foremost, the Bacara should never have been built on this site. It is a poster child for why you have zoning laws to begin with. The stuporvisors approved it because they got sucked into the allure of hotel bed tax money. Well where is the money now? I am not opposed to the hotel, just where it is located. Now they want to add high density condos to this, like that will make it all better? Yikes! It is hard to fight the NIMBY, No-Nothing-Never, I-got- mine-screw-you, anti-everything crowd when they keep getting examples like this to point at to support their cause. As I have said before, the pro-housing community would do itself a service by standing against bad development once in awhile instead of embracing everything that comes along out of desperation.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.15.09 @ 05:25 PM
Bacara screwed itself expecting anyone wealthy to want to come to a tar filled beach as a world class destination when they have so many other choices in the world - then they had to deal with fixing their crappy construction. Now they want to recoup their investment by building condos or converting to condos. Well tough beans. Bad investment, you lose. Don’t make us pay the price of your stupid decisions.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.16.09 @ 10:19 AM
By God AN50 for once we agree on something.
You said: ” As I have said before, the pro-housing community would do itself a service by standing against bad development once in awhile instead of embracing everything that comes along out of desperation.”
I take back one of the bad things I said about you. Maybe you’re not a total crackpot after all? Keep up this kind of thinking and maybe I’ll have to take back more.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Authorities Locate SBCC Student Reported Missing
His mother had asked for the public's help finding her 20-year-old 'special needs' son
Red Flag Warning Canceled; Wind Advisory Still in Effect
Sunny skies are expected to give way to some clouds over the weekend
Santa Barbara Breaks Record With High of 86 Degrees
Previous mark for May 23 was 82, set in 1949, according to the National Weather Service
Santa Maria Man Facing Child Molestation Charges
Victim reports being sexually abused over a period of time by the suspect
Police Seek Public’s Help Identifying Suspect in Retail Thefts
Surveillance photo shows person wanted in connection with thefts at two Santa Barbara stores
Weather: Partly Cloudy 52.0º
Search Noozhawk »
